Primer on the Reevaluation of Electronics

Discussion of electricity, electronics, electrical components and theories of circuit operation.
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1449
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Primer on the Reevaluation of Electronics

Post by bperet » Sat Jan 14, 2017 6:13 pm

Attached is a PDF of the initial section of my reevaluation of electronics, which starts with the very basics of the Reciprocal System--the photon and 1-dimensional rotation. In it, I explain the thinking process behind Larson's original model and what we did in RS2 to improve upon it.

If you have read Nothing But Motion, New Light on Space and Time or Structure of the Physical Universe, you should easily understand it (I quote from NBM). My intent here is not to explain concepts like the progression of the natural reference system, natural units and the general, reciprocal relation between space and time, but to show just how RS and RS2 "boot up" their conceptual basis, ending up in about the same place.

I've only done a first-draft proofread, so this paper is open to comments and suggestions. Let me know if it makes any sense, particularly if you are new to the Reciprocal System. Thank!
Attachments
Primer.pdf
Initial section of primer
(232.63 KiB) Downloaded 260 times
Every dogma has its day...

adam pogioli
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:57 am

Re: Primer on the Reevaluation of Electronics

Post by adam pogioli » Sun Jan 15, 2017 11:11 pm

Thanks Bruce. I am glad you are working on this. I remember you saying something like an electronics primer was something you might do later after you finished a more general intro-book. Are you still working on that, or have you decided to do another article series?

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1449
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Primer on the Reevaluation of Electronics

Post by bperet » Mon Jan 16, 2017 12:02 pm

adam pogioli wrote:I remember you saying something like an electronics primer was something you might do later after you finished a more general intro-book. Are you still working on that, or have you decided to do another article series?
I've been reevaluating electronics and once you fix the conceptual errors, electricity becomes very "mechanical" in the way it works. It may be easier to present the concepts in parallel, so you learn electronics as you learn basic mechanics (in RS terms).

The first section of the book is generic, basically a review of number theory and geometry, which are essential to understanding the reciprocal relation. This would basically be the start of the second section, connecting Larson's work to the research that has been done since his death.

I am trying to stick to very basic principles, which I had in High School (graduated 1975):
  1. The 6 principles of arithmetic: add/subtract, multiply/divide, power/root.
  2. Basic, Euclidean geometry (I will develop projective geometry in another section).
  3. Basic trigonometry and series functions (sine, cosine, tangent, log, ex).
  4. Some familiarity with "imaginary numbers," at least having heard of them. The concept is not expressed correctly with conventional math.
  5. Arrays (computer) or matrices (math) to group dimensions together (which I am calling a "tuple" in the paper, a term used for a row in a database or spreadsheet that has multiple columns).
If I am assuming too much here, someone tell me so I can update the paper to do a brief description or at least point to some study resources.
Every dogma has its day...

adam pogioli
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:57 am

Re: Primer on the Reevaluation of Electronics

Post by adam pogioli » Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:42 pm

bperet wrote: The first section of the book is generic, basically a review of number theory and geometry, which are essential to understanding the reciprocal relation. This would basically be the start of the second section, connecting Larson's work to the research that has been done since his death.

I am trying to stick to very basic principles, which I had in High School (graduated 1975):
  1. The 6 principles of arithmetic: add/subtract, multiply/divide, power/root.
  2. Basic, Euclidean geometry (I will develop projective geometry in another section).
  3. Basic trigonometry and series functions (sine, cosine, tangent, log, ex).
  4. Some familiarity with "imaginary numbers," at least having heard of them. The concept is not expressed correctly with conventional math.
  5. Arrays (computer) or matrices (math) to group dimensions together (which I am calling a "tuple" in the paper, a term used for a row in a database or spreadsheet that has multiple columns).
If I am assuming too much here, someone tell me so I can update the paper to do a brief description or at least point to some study resources.
As I have said before, I don't think you need to explain basic principles in detail, but I do think many of the people I would direct to this book could use some refreshers, especially on the more difficult concepts we may have learned in high school but haven't used in decades. As you say of imaginary numbers, I feel like even some basic mathematical operations have a different meaning in the context of the RS that would be great to hear about. I am sure you don't want to lose the interest of your more advanced readers, so if you want to put some of that as footnotes, either as your explanations or just suggested references when appropriate, that makes sense. I would just say that it really helps to get some explanation as to why a certain mathematical device is being used.

The intro book you had up before the site-move began in this generalist fashion but eventually jumped to niche subjects that didn't seem to follow naturally. I always assumed it wasn't all conceived as a book but stitched together for convenience. Maybe I am asking for something that is contrary to your interests at this point; I am admittedly more interested in the concepts and context than all the technical details. Obviously people of more technical background will probably prefer the condensed style you use in these RS2-titled series papers, especially for quick reference. But I know I have been really helped by your more expanded analogical prose style I see scattered through years of discussion on here. In any case, I look forward to reading the first section. Maybe it will help set up this electronics section better for me. Larson's direction reversal thing has always been hard for me to connect with intuitively. But even at the start of this essay things just seem lacking in context. Even with a previous section on the basics of the reciprocal relation, this section seems uncertain as to the principles it is building off of. I am not following how you get from pure magnitudes to the sheer stresses resulting from different directions in space and time. Are space and time just aspects of a ratio, or are they in some kind of expanding space? I realize some of this may have been addressed in your first section, but there are some fundamental philosophical questions that if addressed early on--perhaps with some topology/projective geometry-- could clarify what is pretty vague and confusing with Larson.

I think a little more fleshed out description of foundations would help a lot of people get past the first steps in visualization. On page 2 you say: "One of the basic principles of the Reciprocal System is that you cannot do the same thing twice in succession." Though there is some explanation that follows, this doesn't appear true as a general principle and the statement's placement at this point really stumped me for a minute. I think for many of you, having rules that simplify physical processes and make sense out of physics is what you value in the RS. But I need to see why something is the way it is before I will follow an idea to its next steps.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1449
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Primer on the Reevaluation of Electronics

Post by bperet » Tue Jan 24, 2017 10:50 am

adam pogioli wrote:As I have said before, I don't think you need to explain basic principles in detail, but I do think many of the people I would direct to this book could use some refreshers, especially on the more difficult concepts we may have learned in high school but haven't used in decades.
Can you quantify this? I've been watching some TEDx videos on modern education (or lack, thereof), particularly in connection with smartPhone addiction, which seems to inhibit long-term memory formation. (Why remember it, when you can just Google it again?) This has crippled the younger generations (under 40) from learning new ideas, because they cannot remember enough of the fundamentals to piece together a larger picture. That is what is making this book challenging. If a reader cannot remember the fundamentals of math and science, there is nothing to build a theory on.

So if you can assist to identify which fundamental components are needed to understand the RS, I can include that as a short "refresher" or primer.
As you say of imaginary numbers, I feel like even some basic mathematical operations have a different meaning in the context of the RS that would be great to hear about.
Aside from returning "imaginary numbers" to their original context of an axial twist, the only other concept that people seem to have difficulty with is Larson's concept of displacements, a displacement from unit speed:

Speed 2/1 = Displacement 0-0-(1)
Speed 1/2 = Displacement 0-0-1

It is actually a weird form of subtraction:

1/2 - 1/1 = 0/1 = 1
2/1 - 1/1 = 1/0 = (1)

where the numerator and denominators are treated as independent from each other, then the spatial aspect (numerator) is put in parenthesis, to show which aspect the displacement is in. This also prohibits ratios like 2/3 - 1/1 = (1)2 = ? because you cannot express BOTH a spatial and temporal displacement in the same equation. This comes from Larson's restriction of having to switch aspects/dimensions with each operation.

Otherwise, the math is the same.
I am sure you don't want to lose the interest of your more advanced readers, so if you want to put some of that as footnotes, either as your explanations or just suggested references when appropriate, that makes sense. I would just say that it really helps to get some explanation as to why a certain mathematical device is being used.
Footnotes are too limited in space for most of the concepts. I would think an advanced reader would just skim over the parts already familiar to him.

I'm not really focusing on advanced readers, because they are a very small minority. The majority of readers of the RS/RS2 material are "armchair physicist" types, usually with a New Age background and got to the material via The Law of One/Ra Material (the questioner, Don Elkins, was a friend of Dewey Larson), David Wilcock or the --daniel papers. And they seem to have an easier job understanding, because there is a lot less to "unlearn." I know that was the case with me, personally... not so much learning something new, but learning what concepts I held as "truth" that were blocking my understanding.

Larson tried for decades to get the scientific community to look at his work--which he firmly believed was exactly what they were looking for. Yet, no interest. There is a huge file of "rejection letters" from almost every physics and astronomy publication on the planet in the ISUS archive. Got to give Larson credit for trying!
The intro book you had up before the site-move began in this generalist fashion but eventually jumped to niche subjects that didn't seem to follow naturally. I always assumed it wasn't all conceived as a book but stitched together for convenience.
I ran out of thread and never finished the stitching. The numerical introduction forms the first part of this book.
But even at the start of this essay things just seem lacking in context. Even with a previous section on the basics of the reciprocal relation, this section seems uncertain as to the principles it is building off of.
What context is missing? I've worked with it for so long, I cannot locate that missing link in my own mind.
I am not following how you get from pure magnitudes to the sheer stresses resulting from different directions in space and time. Are space and time just aspects of a ratio, or are they in some kind of expanding space?
Inward and outward are "directions," and any time you have something linked (like a ratio) that does not have uniform motion, the concept of "shear" results. Birotation is a good example, where two, opposite rotations form a sine wave--the rotation gets "rippled" into the wave by shearing.

I was thinking that the visual of shear stress/strain might relate the concept, but perhaps people don't visualize shearing? (It is a very mechanical system from the old days.)
I realize some of this may have been addressed in your first section, but there are some fundamental philosophical questions that if addressed early on--perhaps with some topology/projective geometry-- could clarify what is pretty vague and confusing with Larson.
Larson has always been a "chicken and the egg" problem... it is hard to know what to put first, since it is based on a cyclic (re: steady-state) concept of the Universe. The starting point of an explanation depends heavily on what the reader already knows, and that varies significantly from person-to-person.
On page 2 you say: "One of the basic principles of the Reciprocal System is that you cannot do the same thing twice in succession."
I just assumed that was a "given" for anyone who has read any of Larson's books, as that led to the whole sequence of making a rotational base.
But I need to see why something is the way it is before I will follow an idea to its next steps.
Can you provide an example? Take a concept you understand from the RS and list the steps that you needed to get to that understanding.
Every dogma has its day...

blaine
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:44 am

Re: Primer on the Reevaluation of Electronics

Post by blaine » Wed Jan 25, 2017 8:33 am

Larson tried for decades to get the scientific community to look at his work--which he firmly believed was exactly what they were looking for. Yet, no interest. There is a huge file of "rejection letters" from almost every physics and astronomy publication on the planet in the ISUS archive. Got to give Larson credit for trying!
Could you link me to these letters? I am interested in reading what their rationale was for rejection.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1449
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Primer on the Reevaluation of Electronics

Post by bperet » Wed Jan 25, 2017 1:16 pm

blaine wrote:Could you link me to these letters? I am interested in reading what their rationale was for rejection.
I have not scanned them in, as they really don't say anything. Here is a sample from the "Annals of Physics" (PDF scan attached).
Attachments
Annals of Physics.pdf
Annals of Physics rejection letter
(24.43 KiB) Downloaded 184 times
Every dogma has its day...

blaine
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:44 am

Re: Primer on the Reevaluation of Electronics

Post by blaine » Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:03 pm

Wow, they don't even give him an explanation for their rejection.

adam pogioli
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:57 am

Re: Primer on the Reevaluation of Electronics

Post by adam pogioli » Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:29 pm

Thanks for listening and considering. I hope my casual critique didn't cause you too much strain. I appreciate what you do and even if I have problems with some of the material, the thought you put into these ideas has immeasurable value whether anyone reads and understands it or not.

I do think it would help to start people with some of the metaphysics and general ideas, since most people, as you say, are coming to this stuff through metaphysical sources. With the increasing popularity of David Wilcock and RA, you will continue to get more and more people who are ready to dive a little deeper into the physics that is hinted at in the RA material.

I think these ideas are at their best when they are shown to be not just a unique historical formulation by a brilliant eccentric, but also a convincing interpretation and integration of general theory. I don't think you have to do some tedious comparison to mainstream science in order to convince people that what they are taking the time to learn about will actually help them understand and converse with alternative and mainstream science cultures, and not be just some radically alternative crazy theory of everything with no practical purpose.

I thought your old intro-book was pretty good to the extent you did stitch it together. I am glad you are keeping part of it in the new version. In what sense did you run out of thread? For me the main issue with these short summary papers is often the lack of thread--lack of narrative, lack of analogical context that can hold the interest of a casual reader. Which is ironic, because that is exactly the strength of these ideas in contrast to mainstream theory. As Larson often points out, most of the details of science are the same as in the mainstream. What is different is in the interpretation. The RS in my mind is a profound reevaluation of basic science through a deeper attention to the actual concepts and their interrelationships that hold up a theory. When more fundamental conceptual questions are dismissed or ignored as "philosophical" rather than scientific, I have to scratch my head. The RS is attractive to me as I would assume others coming from the RA material, precisely because it is recognizes the importance of concepts in determining the meaning of scientific data; it is quite clearly a metaphysical approach to science in the sense that it grounds "physics" (motion) in "metaphysics" (fundamental abstract proportions and their transformations).

I think you are particularly good at looking at things from many angles and using that broad view to illuminate difficult concepts. I have a harder time when you try to simplify and condense things in your more formal writing. Your rs2 papers never really clicked for me. I am 36 years old, but I don't think it is a generation thing. Granted young people are increasingly ignorant and distracted, but the audience for this stuff is always going to be exceptions to the rule. I for one have spent my whole adult life reading dense theory, meditating and thinking about ideas, so if I am lost, I imagine other more general readers might be. What loses me is when things start to seem arbitrary, where I have a hard time seeing why some theoretical move is necessary, but it is presented as self-evident. Perhaps it may be to some people and I am just missing some connection.

If you look at most popular science books, when they are introducing a mathematical concept, they don't explain basic fundamentals in detail, but they do summarize what you need to know about the concept to follow the argument. I personally remember very little of trigonometry, matrices, and arrays, so while you do give some explanation as to why you are referencing these things, my lack of context for 2 out of your 5 prerequisites probably hampers my understanding. But I have found that the strength of any good popular science book is in its ability to make me appreciate why something I learned by rote in school actually has deeper meaning. The RS has the potential to make so much of what seemed pointless in school part of a meaningful cosmology. Which is key to remembering something if you aren't actually using it in your practical life.


I found Larson's Beyond Newton, New Light on Space and Time, Neglected Facts of Science, and the Case Against the Nuclear Atom all to be good introductions. I think I understood everything in them for the most part, even if I don't remember the details. However, when I tried reading Nothing but Motion, the details just didn't seem right and I lost interest half way through. It isn't displacements that confused me. Its this direction reversal thing. He seemed to be suggesting some tension between reference frames, some kind of grounding of actual motion in phenomenological observation. Direction reversal always seemed to be a relative transformation in perspective. I thought maybe you clarified that in rs2. Your old intro-book was much more illuminating for me because the projective geometry suggested to me what kind of space I could think of these things in. But I had to go elsewhere for clarification.

What really clicked everything for me was reading Manuel Delanda's "Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy". He explains so clearly all the concepts from group theory, topology and differential geometry that filled in the gaps and problems I had whenever you start talking about fundamental abstract changes becoming measurable motion. His books are great examples of high level science and mathematical concepts explained in concise clear ways for a general audience. I still have many questions, but now I read things a bit differently and translate RS concepts into my own philosophical vision where time and space have conceptual content and multiple layers of context, which at least to me seems really missing in some of the more reductive presentations of the RS. I think it gets confusing when people are coming over from David Wilcock or Ra, or even the daniel papers where the meaning of time and the cosmic sector takes on an ontological significance proper to such a formulation however inaccurate it may be, and then they get a refutation of that rich meaning with its reduction to a mere aspect of a ratio or a mirror universe replica in some of your constructions.

Concerning shear stress/strain, I think it is an excellent analogy, I just would like to get what I am to visualize more fleshed out when you invoke a shear between different kinds of spaces and directions in time. This is abstract stuff and often gets treated like it is obvious spatial dynamics. It may be clear in your mind, but not in mine. What are the other dimensions doing? Where is the observer? I am presented some real abstract concepts that seem to demand explanation or some reference to an explanation. Otherwise I cannot really grasp how spatial and literal this shear is. I don't think people would have a hard time visualizing motion without something moving if they were given more clarity about where these abstract and concrete formulations come together. Why can I not do the the same thing twice in succession? Again, I am not sure what you plan to explain in the preceding chapters, but I have read a lot of RS material and I am still confused on what the actual sequence of events is. I get that it is a steady state model, and I could see how the progression could prevent exact repetition, but it is easy to get lost without some ground in a bigger picture, some general view of relationships that go into the actual processes we are tracking.

If you just want a concise primer on electronics for those who already understand the general theory than maybe your paper will do nicely. I am doing my best to understand it; I might have to come back to it after some refreshers on the basics. The daniel papers have a nice narrative tone but they are full of his idiosyncratic speculations and theories. I think we need a good compilation of your views.

Gaia TV is getting so popular. Whatever your opinion may be of Corey Goode and David's show, they are exposing more and more people to RA and therefore Larson. Whether the mythology they are helping synthesize is true or not, the more intelligent people of the growing alternative research culture are going to be interested in the deeper science and looking for those knowledgeable. I wish more of them would find their way to your ideas. You are the most thoughtful scholar of the scientific underground, but this stuff can be pretty heady and difficult, so many of them just flock to whomever can show them a dodecahedron to worship. You have so much to say on so many things these people would be interested in; indeed you have already written a lot of it down. It just needs to be more accessible. I hope you can keep an open mind to the different myths as you do with different concepts and show people how the RS might make sense of things.

wsitze
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 4:04 pm
Location: Southern New Mexico
Contact:

Re: Primer on the Reevaluation of Electronics

Post by wsitze » Tue Feb 07, 2017 8:43 pm

Thank you, Bruce! That is a nice (in the original meaning) document. However, you wrote, "One of the basic principles of the Reciprocal System is that you cannot do the same thing twice in succession. So you cannot put two direction reversals together to get a contraction (inward motion). Adam is confused, and I did not get that derivation from Larson's works. Might I suggest that you use the terminology "you cannot have sequential reversals". I'm looking forward to the completion of your book(s).
Graybeard

Post Reply